Protecting the Protectors: Legal Safeguards for NGOs and Police in Trafficking Cases

Human trafficking is one of the most serious crimes in India, and fighting it requires people on the ground – police officers and NGO workers – to act fast, decisively, and without hesitation. But here is the problem: when these individuals carry out search and rescue operations, they sometimes end up on the receiving end of lawsuits filed by those they were trying to dismantle. Traffickers and brothel operators have historically used the threat of litigation as a tactic to slow down or intimidate law enforcement and civil society. Thankfully, Indian law foresaw this danger. The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA) contains a specific legal safeguard – Section 15(6) – that shields police officers, NGO workers, and witnesses from civil or criminal proceedings for actions they take in good faith during these operations.

Why protection from litigation matters 🔗

To understand why this provision is so important, you first need to understand the context in which rescue operations happen. Section 15(1) of the ITPA allows a Special Police Officer (SPO) or a Trafficking Police Officer to enter and search premises without a warrant if they have reasonable grounds to believe that an offence under the Act is being committed and that obtaining a warrant would cause undue delay. This is a high-stakes, time-sensitive operation. Waiting for a warrant could mean victims are moved, evidence is destroyed, or worse – lives are lost.

In such urgent situations, the officers and NGO workers involved have no luxury of deliberation. They act on intelligence, enter premises, and remove individuals they believe are being exploited. Once the dust settles, however, the accused – brothel keepers, traffickers, or even owners of premises – may retaliate through the courts. They file suits or lodge complaints claiming the search was illegal, that their property rights were violated, or that the officers acted without proper authority. Without a legal shield, this kind of counter-litigation would make every rescue officer think twice before acting.

What Section 15(6) actually says 🔗

Section 15(6) of the ITPA states that the special police officer or trafficking police officer, along with all other persons who take part in, attend, or witness a search, shall not be liable to any civil or criminal proceeding against them in respect of anything lawfully done in connection with, or for the purpose of, the search. This is a blanket protection from litigation – but it comes with one important condition: the actions must have been lawful and carried out in good faith.

Who is covered under this protection? 🔗

The protection under Section 15(6) is deliberately broad. It does not apply only to police officers. According to the UNODC’s Handbook for Law Enforcement Agencies in India, the clause covers the authorized police officer, the witnesses, and the NGOs who participate in, attend, or witness a search. This matters because NGOs play a legally mandated role in these operations under the ITPA, not just an informal one.

The legal role of NGOs in search operations 🔗

NGOs are not bystanders in anti-trafficking enforcement under Indian law. The ITPA actively builds them into the system at multiple levels. Under Section 13(3)(b) of the ITPA, the State Government can set up an advisory body consisting of up to five leading social welfare workers – including women – to advise the Special Police Officer on the working of the Act. This body can guide police on how to carry out rescues, ensure victims’ rights are protected, and take steps for rehabilitation.

Beyond advisory roles, the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) on investigating trafficking crimes direct police to secure the help of NGOs to act as panchas (mediators), witnesses, and support personnel during search operations. NGOs also assist with intelligence gathering, victim counseling, and post-rescue care. Given how deeply embedded they are in the process, leaving them legally vulnerable to counter-suits would be a serious gap in the law – and Section 15(6) ensures that gap does not exist.

Section 15(6A): An additional layer involving NGOs 🔗

The ITPA goes further with Section 15(6A), which requires that any search under Section 15 must be accompanied by at least two women police officers. If a woman or girl who has been removed needs to be interrogated, it must be done by a woman police officer. If no woman police officer is available, the interrogation must take place in the presence of a lady member from a recognised welfare institution or NGO. This provision directly ties NGOs into the operational procedure of the search itself – making their participation not optional but legally required in certain circumstances. And because they are required to be there, the protection under Section 15(6) becomes even more essential.

The “bona fide” condition: what it means in practice 🔗

Section 15(6) does not offer blanket immunity for any action taken during a search. The protection applies only to actions that are lawfully done in connection with the search. This is often referred to as the bona fide requirement. The UNODC Handbook describes Section 15(6) as a “safety clause for bona fide work” – meaning the officers and NGO participants must be acting genuinely and within the boundaries of the law.

In practical terms, this means the following conditions should be met for the protection to hold. The SPO or Trafficking Police Officer must have recorded the grounds of their belief before entering the premises, as mandated by Section 15(1). The search must have been conducted with the required witnesses present, including at least one woman, as required by Section 15(2). The persons found during the search must have been produced before a Magistrate promptly, as required by Section 15(5). If any of these procedural requirements are violated, the protection under Section 15(6) may not apply, and the individuals involved could face legal consequences.

Why this protection matters for India’s anti-trafficking efforts 🔗

India continues to face significant challenges in combating human trafficking. The U.S. State Department’s 2024 Trafficking in Persons Report places India in Tier 2, meaning the country does not fully meet the minimum standards for eliminating trafficking but is making efforts to do so. The report notes that law enforcement often prioritises other crimes over trafficking, and that limited resources continue to hinder anti-trafficking operations across states.

In this environment, the legal protection offered by Section 15(6) is not a minor procedural detail – it is a policy enabler. If police officers and NGO workers fear that every rescue operation could result in a lawsuit, they will hesitate. That hesitation translates directly into delayed rescues, missed victims, and emboldened traffickers. The protection clause removes this deterrent and allows frontline actors to focus on what matters: getting victims out safely and as quickly as possible.

Integrated Anti-Human Trafficking Units and the role of NGOs 🔗

Integrated Anti-Human Trafficking Units (IAHTUs) are set up across India to bring together police, NGOs, and government agencies under one operational structure. A nodal NGO identified by the state police supports each IAHTU, and in consultation with the Anti-Human Trafficking Officer, can associate up to three local NGOs as needed. These units carry out search and rescue operations, provide legal counseling to victims, and ensure victim-witness protection throughout the trial process. The legal shield provided by Section 15(6) is foundational to how these units function – without it, the coordination between police and NGOs in high-risk operations would be far harder to sustain.

Limitations and gaps worth noting 🔗

While Section 15(6) provides meaningful protection, it is not without limitations. The clause protects only those involved in searches conducted under Section 15. If an NGO or police officer takes action outside the formal framework of a Section 15 search – for example, conducting an independent investigation or acting on information without the involvement of an SPO – the protection may not extend to them. This is why proper coordination between NGOs and law enforcement remains critical.

Additionally, determining whether an action was truly “lawful” and carried out in good faith can itself become a matter of legal dispute. If a court later finds that the search was conducted without proper procedure – say, the grounds were not recorded, or the required witnesses were absent – the protection could be challenged. This places a responsibility on all participants to follow the prescribed steps meticulously.

The protection also does not address situations where NGOs initiate action independently through a Magistrate when no notified police officer is available – a scenario that the ITPA does contemplate but which operates under a different procedural pathway. In such cases, the legal safeguards may differ, and NGOs must be aware of the specific requirements that apply.

The bigger picture: enabling victim-first enforcement 🔗

The purpose of Section 15(6) extends beyond simply protecting individuals from lawsuits. It is designed to create an environment where the best interest of the victim is the guiding principle in every rescue operation. The SOPs on investigating trafficking crimes are clear on this point: rescue should not be delayed under any circumstances, because delay denies justice and worsens the exploitation victims endure. Section 15(6) supports this directive by ensuring that the fear of litigation does not become a reason to delay action.

When police officers and NGO workers know they are legally protected for acting in good faith, they can focus on speed, safety, and the welfare of those they are rescuing. That is precisely the kind of assertive, victim-oriented approach that Indian anti-trafficking law is designed to encourage.

What do you think? If an NGO worker participates in a search operation and the rescued person later files a complaint against them, should the protection under Section 15(6) automatically apply – or should every case be evaluated individually based on the specific actions taken? And given that NGOs are legally required to participate in certain aspects of trafficking operations, do you think the current protection is sufficient to encourage their full and active involvement?

References

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15100/1/immoral_traffic_prevention_act_(itpa)_1956.pdf
2. https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/India_Training_material/Handbook_for_Law_Enforcement_Agencies_in_India.pdf
3. https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/India_Training_material/Protocol_on_AHTU.pdf
4. https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/India_Training_material/SOP_on_Investigation_of_Crimes_of_Trafficking_for_Commercial.pdf
5. https://bprd.nic.in/uploads/pdf/1745497790_31ae803126827f574b39.pdf
6. https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-trafficking-in-persons-report/india/